Cartooning Mohammad The Prophet or... Shouting Fire in A Crowded Theater
by Terrell E. Arnold

February 9, 2006

from Rense Website

On September 30, 2005 twelve cartoons depicting Mohammad the Prophet were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

Admitting that cartoonists generally were reluctant to work with him on illustrations for a children's book on Mohammad the Prophet, the writer, Kare Bluitgen, reportedly commissioned and published these cartoons to illustrate how difficult it was to get people to work on this subject. It took several months for this blooper to become common knowledge in the outside world, but the result has been predictably chaotic.

The crisis, according to one report, was precipitated by a young Islamic scholar in Denmark who hand delivered the cartoons to leading Arab officials and clerics. This young activist Ahmad Akkari now appears to admit how much he underestimated how volatile publishing the cartoons could be. Certainly the creator now knows why illustrators were reluctant to work on his book, but that is only the first lesson.

Islamic religious aversion to images of people or animals, especially images of God or the prophets, is well known, probably even in Denmark. In Christendom, outside of images on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel of the Vatican, godly depictions are rare. Even mention of the name of God is often frowned upon and is written by some as g-d to avoid full reference. Most societies, regardless of the specifics of their beliefs, are circumspect about references to their deity. This subject is not, therefore, the proper subject of flippant discourse in any society.

Westerners as a group may have become fairly casual about various biblical references, and cartooning, even of delicate subjects, is actually a commonplace way of raising certain issues without offense. The offense, if any might be taken, may be diminished in some societies by cartooning, and cartoons about some subjects may make people angry, but rarely at the cartoonist. Some would class this state of mind as a sign of western moral decay, but others might class it as a sign of maturity.

Whatever the case, any detachment about religious matters has been achieved by a relatively small number of Muslims. Aniconism, the aversion to images, including not depicting images of the Prophet, is an Islamic practice that has outlasted generations of exposure to the outside world, and it presently resides among the strongest of Islamic core beliefs. Mosques, old or new, are often elegant studies in geometric designs and Arabesque wood work, and mosque windows (mashrabia) are often screened with finely turned and finished lathe work. But there are no human or animal images in them.

In quiet global times, when there were no significant disagreements between Islamic countries and the West, the Danish cartooning gaffe might have passed with relatively little note. It would in no case have been ignored, but it came on top of a pile of provocations: The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the War on Terrorism that US and increasingly European officials and media refer to as a clash of civilizations, the increasing poverty of many Islamic societies, the readiness of certain individuals and groups to use this gaffe to their own advantage, and the ready global circulation of any story together rendered the climate to say the least poor for an offense against Mohammad the Prophet. In this regard, a Bush team decision to tie the crisis to its Middle East agenda by blaming Iran and Syria only further inflames Islamic emotions.

Danish journalists, the Government of Denmark, and media allies in many countries have argued that publishing the cartoons is covered by freedom of speech, that is, in the United States, speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In a waspish defense of that argument, the cartoons have been published worldwide on the Internet, in the newspapers of 20 countries or more, and in one US newspaper.

That sounds all well and good, but none of the media organizations taking this position would publish a cartoon of an Israeli rabbi with a bomb fuse in his skull cap, even though there have been some fairly rabid ones. Nor would they publish an image of Jesus Christ holding a hand grenade with his arm drawn back to throw it, even though a number of Christians openly support violence. The image of Mohammad the Prophet with a bomb fuse in his turban is no less offensive.

None of those images would pass muster in the US as "protected speech". In fact, predictably all of them would have the same effect as shouting fire in a crowded theater. Not everybody who heard about them or saw them would be angered enough to react violently, but some would.

The publication of the cartoons was at a minimum thoughtless. Reactions have been excessive, but such effects in the present state of world affairs were totally predictable. Justifying the publication as an act of free speech is a dangerous example of a growing Western habit of looking down its nose at the sensibilities of Islamic peoples.

It is time for serious fence-mending, starting with recognizing that even if the cartoons were an innocent stupidity, they were potentially offensive to one out of six people on the planet. Even if real and determined work is attempted to repair the damage, it is unlikely to be successful in the short run. Both the reactions to the cartoons and the task of cleaning up after them are closely linked to past and proclaimed future western policies and actions toward Islamic societies.

Back to Contents
 
 

Cartoon Clashes Provide Smokescreen for Other Muslim, Arab Issues
by Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
February 07, 2006

from CNSNews Website

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com)

- Iran and other Arab regimes are fueling anger over cartoons of Mohammed to advance their own interests -- to deflect criticism of their regimes and deter punitive measures against them, sources here said.

Several people have been killed in violence related to the cartoon protests that have spread across the Muslim world. European diplomatic missions have been attacked in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

Some Muslims say that according to Islamic law, it is forbidden to depict Mohammed in any form. The cartoons were first published in a Danish newspaper in September, and the anger -- organized opposition in many cases -- has been building and spreading since then.

"It is a combination of spontaneous and organized [protests]," one source in Jerusalem told Cybercast News Service.

"The idea is to change the [international] agenda," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

If someone has a problem with the world because of his nuclear program or the threat of sanctions or because of elections that were not so democratic, then he could point to the cartoons and say his own problem with the West is "all because of Islam."

Dr. Martin Kramer of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said some protests may have started locally with the imams, but he also said it is important to look at "who is getting a ride" on the wave of resentment.

The answer to who is behind the trouble "is in the palaces" of the Arab and Muslim world - the leadership. The goal is to divide the transatlantic alliance between Europe and America on key issues facing the world, Kramer said.

"Iran needs for the West to be divided. Syria needs for the west to be divided [and] the Muslim Brotherhood wants to break any embargo [that might be placed on the] Hamas principality," said Kramer.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt want to escape Western pressure to make democratic changes, he said.

"The affair is a godsend for the regimes. They are not interested in Danish apologies. They want to be paid off... in the U.N. Security Council and in the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] and the inner conclaves of the financial institutions [like the World Bank]," he said.

Iran is under threat of United Nations sanctions for pressing ahead with its nuclear program, which the West believes is a cover-up for making an atomic bomb; Syria is under threat of sanctions unless it cooperates with an investigation into the murder of a former Lebanese prime minister. Syrian leaders, in fact, are suspected of involvement in the assassination.

Hamas, which won a majority of seats in Palestinian parliamentary elections, is the first group of the radical Muslim Brotherhood to triumph in elections. But Hamas, which is likely to form the next Palestinian Authority government, is under pressure to renounce terrorism and to recognize Israel or face a cutoff of U.S. and European funding.

"Syria and Iran [want Europe] bowed into meek submission," said Kramer. They are trying to escape sanctions, he said.

There is also the possibility of creating a division between Europe and the U.S. on the issue of funding Hamas, he said.

According to Kramer, al Qaeda probably is not behind the cartoon-related troubles, since its "method is to set off bombs in Europe." But Egypt might have a hand in it, he said.

Egypt, considered a strong U.S. ally in the Middle East, is nevertheless under intense pressure to make democratic reforms. But Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is resisting those efforts, because he wants to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of power.

It was Egypt's foreign minister who first started protesting the issue of the cartoons, Kramer said. It could be that the government of Egypt wants to be seen as a defender of Islam in place of the Muslim Brotherhood.

At the same time, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are playing a double game: while the West is pressing them to make reforms, they are saying, "we're the only one who can guard your interests," Kramer said.

No appeasement

Professor Raphael Israeli, professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said appeasement of the Islamic world would be a mistake and the U.S. and Europe must remain united.

"Appeasment never worked," Israeli said. Making an apology like the Danish prime minister did or even worse, condemning incitement against Islam like President Bush did, does no good and can instead encourage the Muslim world, said Israeli.

The West needs to state a policy, "be firm" and make its own legislation based on Western values, he said.

Western countries should pass laws against blasphemy while at the same time maintaining freedom of the press -- and then uphold that freedom. Each cartoon (or case) would then be judged on its own merits.

Israeli referred to a case in Israel where a Russian immigrant, Tatiana Soskin, drew a picture of Mohammed as a pig writing the Koran. The picture was posted in the West Bank city of Hebron in 1997. Soskin was tried, convicted and served time in jail for the incident because it was judged that she had intended to offend the Palestinians.

"There must be a difference between anti-religious incitement and humor," said Israeli.

Israeli said enacting laws against blasphemy is the only way the West can be fair -- and appear to be fair -- and it is the only way to teach Muslims that what they would have others do, they must do themselves.

Back to Contents